ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Forensic pathology standards in China: a 30-year retrospective study.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
China's forensic pathology standardization has accumulated more than 30 years of experience, but there is limited research summarizing the features and detailed information concerning these standards. In this paper, we collected documents on forensic pathology standards and statistically analyzed their types, effective scopes, drafting units, authorization departments, promulgation times, revision cycles, and other information. All of the standards information was obtained from standardization websites and databases. Since the first national standardization committee of forensic science established in 1991, a total of thirty-six forensic pathology standards have been published, including one national standard, thirty-one sector standards, and four enterprise standards. Among them, twenty-four standards were currently valid, while another twelve had been repealed. There were two management standards and thirty-four technical standards. The minimum revision cycle for standards was nine years, and the maximum cycle was twenty-three years. The standards system of forensic pathology had been primarily established, and the public welfare attributes of standardization were strengthened. However, some challenges still await positive actions, such as resolving the relative deficiencies of basic and management standards, satisfying the requirements for national standards, and advancing the delayed revisions of standards. In the future, we should continue to promote national standards for forensic pathology, actively absorb advanced international experience, strengthen the construction of basic and management standards, and fully encourage the flexibility, efficiency, and pioneer of standards dominated by associations, enterprises, and other organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853363What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.